date:20150806



sent from a phone

> Am 06.08.2015 um 09:06 schrieb Lauri Kytömaa :
> 
> . Most sidewalks don't have any
> traffic signs, but they are footways


whether they are footways in osm is somehow disputed I believe. They are not 
independent ways on their own but rather similar to lanes (mostly).



> , and most footways in
> parks don't have any signs designating them, but they still
> function as a footway and look like a footway, especially
> when the mapper compares them to the combined or
> segregated footway and cycleway nearby.


Yes (might depend on the region).


> This is to say
> that not all footways are equal to path+foot=designated,
> but in the other direction the implied equivalence holds.


ok, you have to look at "official" then. Unlike designated, it doesn't require 
access to be signposted, it requires "legally dedicated" which holds true for 
sidewalks and park footways.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path



sent from a phone

> Am 06.08.2015 um 09:06 schrieb Lauri Kytömaa :
> 
> highway=cycleway: physically good for cycling and walking,
> cycling legal, walking allowed if in country defaults or tagged.


I believe you can't imply physical characteristics here, the class is about 
legal access ("designated cycleways"). Around here there are some signposted 
cycleways which aren't physically suitable for bicycles (partially), even if 
this may sound strange to many of you ;-)

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path



sent from a phone

> Am 06.08.2015 um 03:50 schrieb johnw :
> 
> If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns, 
> lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with 
> foot access =yes
> 
> I would never consider tagging that as =path with foot & cycle =yes.


the equivalent would be:

highway=path
bicycle=designated/official 
foot=yes


> I would consider a cycleway tagged as such mis-tagged and correct it. 


then you should re-read the wiki ;-)


> 
> It plainly is not a path


is it a "highway"? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the 
meaning(s) of the words in natural language.

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path


On 06/08/2015 09:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am 06.08.2015 um 03:50 schrieb johnw :

If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns, 
lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with 
foot access =yes

I would never consider tagging that as =path with foot & cycle =yes.


the equivalent would be:

highway=path
bicycle=designated/official
foot=yes




I'm assuming here that you're assuming that "designated" or "official" 
in an access tag (which is what "bicycle" is normally) here implies a 
value of "yes", though the wiki is unclear on that point*.  Imagine in 
that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than "yes" - 
how would you tag that?


Cheers,

Andy

* Interestingly http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does not 
mention "official" at all.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> is it a "highway"? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the 
> meaning(s) of the words in natural language.

When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and via_ferrata, 
again, why is path the odd man out? 

Why does path get to stretch so far above its name and useful range? 

Its like naming it highway=not_car_way, and throwing the rest of the definition 
in after, however one interprets the myriad of subtags that could be added to 
it. Something that could represent a mountain path, a mountain track, a gravel 
bridleway, a concrete cycleway, and a asphalt walkway through a park is a 
useless garbage tag. Literally pointless - as it can mean anything anyone wants 
it to be. Im not trying to be offensive - I just cant understand why a 
wide-open tag would ever be considered, let alone approved, when assumed grade 
is _so important_ for walking and cycling, similar to trunk, primary, 
secondary, etc for driving. It os a relative scale by country, but i

So far in the replies, Ive read a sidewalk isn't a footway (its lanes on a road 
[no]) and a track in a wilderness park isn't a track (its a path [uhh, no]) 

Not being able to define sidewalks separately nor separate tracks from trails 
means all of the mapping is untrustworthy for proper routing nor proper 
rendering ***to represent the world as it exists***

I must be completely disconnected from consensus then, because the more I 
understand =path as defined sounds seriously weird and the replies about what 
is and isn't a path sound even more bizarre. 

Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path


On 06/08/2015 10:24, John Willis wrote:

On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

is it a "highway"? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the 
meaning(s) of the words in natural language.

When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and via_ferrata, 
again, why is path the odd man out?

Why does path get to stretch so far above its name and useful range?



I suspect it might help if you could explain what "path" means to you* - 
to my "English as spoken in England" sensibilities "path" is a broad 
term that can apply to a wide variety of physical characteristics.


Cheers,

Andy


* In fact wasn't there exactly this survey done some time ago - lots of 
pictures and "how would you tag this"?





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone

> Am 06.08.2015 um 11:24 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> 
>> On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> is it a "highway"? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the 
>> meaning(s) of the words in natural language.
> 
> When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and via_ferrata, 
> again, why is path the odd man out? 

this you have to ask the gods of tagging ;-)
seriously, that's where our history of developing tags has brought us, there is 
no point in asking "why", tags are settings that the community has come up 
with, it got caught by the mappers and now it is like this. It might not be 
completely logical but it doesn't look as if there is sufficient support to 
change it.

cheers 

Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path



sent from a phone

> Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend :
> 
> Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than 
> "yes" - how would you tag that?


bicycle=permissive


cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread Ruben Maes

 2015-08-06 11:24 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> So far in the replies, Ive read a sidewalk isn't a footway (its lanes on
a road [no]) and a track in a wilderness park isn't a track (its a path
[uhh, no])
>
> Not being able to define sidewalks separately nor separate tracks from
trails means all of the mapping is untrustworthy for proper routing nor
proper rendering ***to represent the world as it exists***

You can use sidewalk=both/left/right.

When micromapping, I might draw sidewalks that are really separated from
the road separately. I always tag them with highway=footway +
footway=sidewalk. When I connect them near crossings, I do those parts
highway=footway + footway=crossing.

--+-- highway=footway  footway=sidewalk
  |
==x== highway=residential
  |
  highway=footway
  footway=crossing

And the x gets highway=crossing of course.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path


On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend :

Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than "yes" 
- how would you tag that?

bicycle=permissive



How would anyone know that this "highway=path" was actually, physically, 
a cycleway?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Ruben Maes  wrote:
> 
> --+-- highway=footway  footway=sidewalk
>   |
> ==x== highway=residential
>   |
>   highway=footway
>   footway=crossing
> 
> And the x gets highway=crossing of course.

+1 

That is how I do it, except I tag the way that crosses as (iD preset) crosswalk 
from curb to curb, which shares a node with the road. So i don't need a tag on 
the node too, right? 

Sidewalks are so convoluted and make connections to other sidewalks that go 
between buildings and into parks - but don't connect to the roads (legally or 
are physically blocked with a hedge) except at crosswalks or roads without 
sidewalks. 

Adding both/left/right is a placeholder until an actual sidewalk can be tagged 
and crosswalks mapped. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread ksg



> Am 06.08.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Andy Townsend :
> 
>> On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 
>> Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend :
>> 
>> Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than 
>> "yes" - how would you tag that?
>> 
>> bicycle=permissive
> 
> How would anyone know that this "highway=path" was actually, physically, a 
> cycleway?
> 
It isn't, to me this appears to be a multi-use-path. May be we should replace 
"path" by that key ;)

geow
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path



sent from a phone

Am 06.08.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Andy Townsend :

>> Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than 
>> "yes" - how would you tag that?
>> 
>> bicycle=permissive
> 
> How would anyone know that this "highway=path" was actually, physically, a 
> cycleway?


a cycleway is nothing "physical", it is a legal setting. Or what do you mean 
with "physically"?

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path


Andy Townsend  writes:

> On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend :
>>
>> Imagine in that example that bicycle access was "permissive" rather than 
>> "yes" - how would you tag that?
>>
>> bicycle=permissive
>
> How would anyone know that this "highway=path" was actually,
> physically, a cycleway?

If bicycle=permissive (rather than designated), then it's not really a
cycleway.

If you mean physically, then

  surface=paved width=2.5m

would help.



pgpFxgJldsfMn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Lauri Kytömaa  writes:

> Oh well, the yearly path discussion is here again.
>
> On Thu Greg Troxel wrote:
>>   as vehicle types default to no on all of these), but it will not
>>   physically fit.  If it did fit, the way should be tagged as a track.
>
> Most of the time "track" is not a relevant value: a track can not
> be too narrow that a two tracked motor vehicle can't get through,
> but even most cycleways are much wider than that. All of
> footway, path, cycleway, bridleway can be much wider than that.
> Track is a way primarily used for forestry or farming, with no or
> very little other usage, and legally open to those or all motor
> vehicles.

Around me, most things tagged as track are not legally open to all
vehicles; they are usually private.   That's the nature of a track vs an
unpaved residential or unclassified road.   A public way (open to all,
owned by the government) and a private way (also open to all, but not
owned by the government) are more or less by definition not tracks.

>> highway=footway and  highway=path foot=designated
>> which are defined to be the same.
>
> The original discussion made the *one way* equivalence that
> if a way has path + foot=designated, consumers that didn't
> care about the extra details, could consider that tag
> combination equal to footway. Most sidewalks don't have any
> traffic signs, but they are footways, and most footways in
> parks don't have any signs designating them, but they still
> function as a footway and look like a footway, especially
> when the mapper compares them to the combined or
> segregated footway and cycleway nearby. This is to say
> that not all footways are equal to path+foot=designated,
> but in the other direction the implied equivalence holds.

Absent bicycle=no and horse=no, I don't see what is different.  And the
default renderer does treat them the same.

People keep saying that "path" implies some sort of rough unmaintained
state (or rather that footway does not), but I don't think that really
exists in current practice.  The world is too complicated, both globally
and locally, in order to have a small number of neat divisions at the
primary key level.  The various notions of paved/not, width, well
maintained (whatever that means), etc. should just be tagged separately.

> I'd say we have to live with the current practices, even if some
> ignored the arguments at the time the path proposal was
> discussed (that path is only needed when footway, cycleway
> or bridleway are misleading, and the value designated is
> _only then_ needed to tell consumers for whom the way is
> intended - that's usually given with a sign). I'd say the best
> suggestion is to encourage extra descriptive tags for some
> cases that could be mistaken because different countries
> have adopted varying practices; some prefer cycleway and
> footway over path (I do), others try to use path unless it's a
> "bicycles only" cycleway with a sign.

I agree that's a mess.  I think the biggest issue is that path and
footway render very differently, e.g.

   highway=path foot=designated  bicycle=yes  (== highway=footway, with
   bikes allowed))

is almost the same as

  highway=path foot=yes bicycle=yes

but looks very different.

> I believe the following properties are uncontested, even if such
> ways for which these desriptions fit can appear in many different
> forms, with different signage or without any traffic signs at all:
>
> highway=footway: physically good for walking, and no
> bicycles unless tagged otherwise

I don't think it implies either way that biccyles are allowed.  Only
that there is some strong notion that walking is the primary purpose.

> highway=cycleway: physically good for cycling and walking,
> cycling legal, walking allowed if in country defaults or tagged.

I don't think we should be using country defaults.if not tagged,
walking is not known to be allowed and not known to be not allowed.

> highway=path: unless otherwise tagged, walking, cycling and
> possibly riding is allowed. look at other tags (if they're present)
> to see if suitable for your mode of transport.

I agree that highway=path implies (if not tagged) foot=yes biccyle=yes
horse=yes, and I also think it more or less implies that vehicles are
not permitted, and probably not really feasible.

I think part of the issue is regional difference in practices.  I have
the impression from comments that in Europe there is a big divide
between in-city built cycleways and trails in the forest, and people see
them as two completely different things.  In the US, we do have both of
those, but there is also an old railroad grade near me, which is perhaps
2m wide and fairly rough gravel (ok for mountain bike, tough on a road
bike).  It's not really a cycleway, because there's no official notion
tha bicycles are a higher use than walking.  It's not signed either way
about horses, and really it isn't signed at all, exccept for perhaps no
motor vehicles.

The other regional differen

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path


On 06/08/2015 12:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

a cycleway is nothing "physical", it is a legal setting. Or what do you mean with 
"physically"?




... since we seem to have dipped into "highway=path" again :)

The English word "cycleway" refers to a physical object - which 
archetype is this-thing-that-I'm-mapping most like, not a "legal 
setting".  You're legally allowed to cycle on England-and-Wales "public 
bridleways" but that doesn't make them all "cycleways".


Much more elquently than me, Richard Fairhurst has explained the problem 
previously in opinion pieces such as 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 .


Obviously you can do stuff with surface / width / smoothness / tracktype 
/ mtb:scale / whatever else, but it's a bit like trying to describe 
something through the medium of interpretative dance - it misses the 
"this is what this thing is mostly like" part.  There are places where 
"path" really is the best description (I'm currently mapping lots of 
them in a large area of nearby woodland), but it is something of a "last 
resort".


Cheers,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread johnw

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> Much more elquently than me, Richard Fairhurst has explained the problem 
> previously in opinion pieces such as 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging 
> 

I would like that post burned onto the surface of the moon with a laser, so we 
can see it hanging ver our heads every night as we map and think of tagging 
schemes. 

What a great post. It states much more eloquently the issue of path than I ever 
could state it. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path



sent from a phone

Am 06.08.2015 um 15:22 schrieb johnw :

>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging
> 
> 
> I would like that post burned onto the surface of the moon with a laser, so 
> we can see it hanging ver our heads every night as we map and think of 
> tagging schemes. 


you mean particularly this passage?

"'highway=cycleway' is just like this. It's a meaningful object. It means a 
path"


highway=cycleway means a kind of path ;-)

While duck tagging works very good within the same culture and region, it bears 
at the same time the risk that mappers in different regions have different 
assumptions of what is implied by certain words. Eg the cycleway: in some parts 
of the world, cycleways implicitly allow pedestrians while in other parts they 
are implicitly banned. If all mappers just map cycleways and don't care for 
access restrictions for pedestrians we end up with the same tags meaning 
different things.

cheers 
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> If all mappers just map cycleways and don't care for access restrictions for 
> pedestrians we end up with the same tags meaning different things.

That is very true - which means that assumptions based on country need to be 
made by the routers, and presets that change based on mapping location need to 
be made. ("German Cycleway" and cycleway come up when searching for cycleway 
presets when mapping in Germany).

Just as we have a variance as to what is a "primary road" in a third world vs 
first world nation, we can still have a consistent regional meaning to what is 
a "primary" road. The same could be said of cycleway or footway.

What i consider a residential road in Japan might be thought of as an Alley in 
the US because of differences in expectations in how wide, easy to navigate, 
turn radius, pole placement, barriers and hazards, etc there are - beyond 
simple residential access. 

but we don't just make everything highway=yes and define the differences 
through subtags.

There are even more specialized tags in residential - a living street, which is 
a regional tag. Why not have highway=cycle-ped_path (and a couple others?) to 
fill in common situations? They could be rendered purple (red+blue). A regional 
mapper could choose the best one for their area. 

But i still feel that going by assumed purpose (a sidewalk is a footway, a bike 
path along a river is a cycleway) regardless of what is legal/permissive to use 
the way for (add foot=yes or whatever as necessary) would better reflect the 
"duck" qualities of the way being tagged. 

The easiest short term solution is to fill in some kind of "trail" substitute 
for true "trails" that are maintained, like rural hiking courses or narrow, 
rough paths through nature,  which would take a lot of the "path through the 
wilderness" burden off of =path, and set up for a change in rendering/meaning 
for path in the future - if you don't need to tag =path on anything, then 
eventually (a long time from now) it can be depreciated. 

Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path



sent from a phone

> Am 06.08.2015 um 17:03 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> Just as we have a variance as to what is a "primary road" in a third world vs 
> first world nation, we can still have a consistent regional meaning to what 
> is a "primary" road. The same could be said of cycleway or footway.


you're the second person on this mailing list in a short period stating this 
(different definition for primary road between so-called third and first world 
nations), but it is not true. We have global definitions for the highway tag 
roads: from primary to unclassified there is a hierarchy. Now the actual 
physical appearance will vary a lot between primaries according to the context, 
true, and not just between a poor country and a rich country but also within 
the same country (e.g. due to traffic density, rural vs. urban setting, 
topography, cultural heritage etc.)

cheers 
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread geow

dieterdreist wrote
> While duck tagging works very good within the same culture and region, it
> bears at the same time the risk that mappers in different regions have
> different assumptions of what is implied by certain words.

On first sight, descriptive keys like footway or cycleway seem to give a
clear indication of the type of a path. Actually that’s only true, if you
provide - in addition to the highway tag - other decent attributes, like
surface, width, smoothness, incline etc. So either way an equal number of
tags are usually required to describe a way equally.

The main reason why I propose to change

„…used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians“ to

"highway=footway is used for pathways designated for pedestrians.“

is, that on most of the planet (outside of the UK;) there are only few sign
posted or otherwise designated footpaths out of urban/residential or
otherwise popular/crowded areas. Rural and wilderness paths globally may be
used by all kinds of non 4-wheel traffic, including stock, mule, yaks,
motorcycles etc. and are rarely exclusively footways.

The actual usage of footway vs path in the UK is significantly different
from most of the rest of the world, partly because of national access
restrictions, partly because of the "duck tagging" mapping tradition, which
is understandable and historically determined.

The proportion of path:footway

globally is 1:1.4,
in France it's 1:1,
in Poland 1:3 and
in UK 1:5!

In the UK especially England and Wales a highway with
designation=public_footpath is mainly attributed as footway (even if it's
physically a track).

geow

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851854.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging depots without introducing yet another landuse value

2015-08-06 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:41:43 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Am 03.08.2015 um 14:15 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny
> > :
> > 
> > I created
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/*%3Ddepot
> > intended as alternative to landuse=depot that I consider as really
> > bad tagging scheme.
> 
> 
> I agree with you, but suggest to make that vehicle_depot to
> distinguish from other types of depots (e.g. military)

A good idea, edited. Thanks!


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:45:10 -0400
Greg Troxel  wrote:

> I agree that's a mess.  I think the biggest issue is that path and
> footway render very differently, e.g.
> 
>highway=path foot=designated  bicycle=yes  (== highway=footway,
> with bikes allowed))
> 
> is almost the same as
> 
>   highway=path foot=yes bicycle=yes
> 
> but looks very different.

Yes - JOSM, iD and Default rendering all have this problem.

See also
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2327 - "take into account
access tags for path rendering" (ticket)
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1713 -
"unify=path/footway styling, show surface for
highway=path/footway/cycleway" (pull request)
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11753 "stop rendering
highway=path in way that implies that it is for low quality
footways" (ticket).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Contact:* prefix

2015-08-06 Thread Dave F.


On 04/08/2015 14:07, Michał Brzozowski wrote:

This means just not to add contact details of private persons like me or you.


OK, but it needs to be amended because that's not what it says


As per contact: prefix, opponents argue it's redundant. Isn't so addr:
as well? In reality keys with and without contact: are equivalent.
My argument for using it is that new popular services for
communication appear every year nowadays, and contact: prefix makes it
clear and easy to standardize. You can have contact:facebook,
contact:twitter, contact:instagram and so on.


I don't see how it standardizes when, as you point out, the popular 
content for the key on the right ie facebook, twitter etc varies yearly.


If data manipulators want to process 'contacts' they still have to 
perform the same parsing so there's no gain there.


For some tag developments i can see the benefits, but I'm struggling 
with this one I'm afraid.


Cheers
Dave F.





Michał

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

Hi

wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:contact

I remember a discussion a while back about this. As the page makes no
mention of the logic behind, could someone please remind me of the reasoning
& advantage over straight forward phone, fax, website etc.

"You should only add contact informations to POIs and not to any private
address!"

By 'POI' does he mean 'public company'?

Thanks
Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread Ilpo Järvinen

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:

> 
> Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:
> 
> >> Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that 
> >> overlap?
> >
> > because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway
> >
> > path with horse=designated is the same as highway =bridleway 
> >
> > and you can also make combinations without having to decide for
> > footway, cycleway or bridleway. Also, without any further access tags,
> > path is neutral and open to all unmotorized means of transport (unlike
> > footway, cycleway etc.)
> 
> I agree with what Martin said.   I also agree with previous commenters
> that redefining semantics of path or adding footpath would cause a lot
> of problems.  A few problems and random comments.
> 
>   There's no clear default for path, footway or every cycleway about
>   surface.  The obvious answer is that surface tags should be used.
> 
>   Similarly, a width tag should be used.  Or perhaps some tag that
>   indicates a forest trail.   But this shoudl be extra, so that data
>   consumers that don't know about it will still know that
>   foot/bike/etc. traffic works.

But that's actually exactly the dangerous approach. There's no guarantee 
that such forest trails will even be safe to use (especially on 
mountaneous terrain). It would be much more conservative approach to not 
render nor use them without intention. In theory sac_scale and various 
other tags could be used to distinguish them but it would be much better 
to have a highway type which has built-in expectation that various 
hazards/obstacles to use are more likely to exists compared to what is 
likely to occur on man-made highway=footway/path (I suppose somebody comes 
up a counterexample from a signposted footway which is why I used 
"likely". It's enough to understand that no matter what, hazards will 
always be possible and we should not try to entirely remove map user 
brains from the loop like GPS driving instructions occassionally tend to 
do to some people :-)).

In addition, giving equal prominance to forest trails and other footways 
depending on surface alone as proposed is significantly less useful to 
both map users and also to mappers (no hiking map or like is magically 
going to fix this as it's not the main source of mapper visual feedback).

The map user (I refer to a human here, not to somebody using the data) 
perspective should be pretty obvious, if both look the same there's no way 
to know that one of the equal looking "unpaved paths" is actually built-up 
recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly 
visible, forest trails. In theory this prominance problem might be solved 
by informal=yes but in practice I expect at least the mapnik stylesheet 
guys to stonewall on this because of the extra data column that will be 
needed to make them less prominant (however, I don't endorse informal as
solution as I think a new highway=* value or =trail would be much better 
for this but one the same time some solution would be better than no 
solution). Pointing map users to "hiking maps" is not going to work since 
those people who want to use the non-trail ways are not going to identify 
themselves to need such alternative presentation when they only want to 
identify the safe routes, not the serious hiking information.

From the mapper point of view the default stylesheets are supposed to 
help mapping (the visual feedback thing) and therefore IMHO it should try 
to provide means to distinguish details we are highly interested in, that 
is, access and surface at minimum. I don't know if such style becomes too 
messy to be implementable, however, I think that the lack of visual 
feedback on all these currently both in default mapnik and editors is one 
of the major reasons why people are not realizing where they need to 
be added. In addition, the forest/informal trails should be somehow given 
less prominance to help both mappers and map users to identify them 
visually (the former need this information to spot mistakes in order to 
correct them).

I know that there will be some (rather vocal) people who oppose any idea 
that there's need to such prominance distinction (or even that it 
would/should matter to anyone) but it's hard to understand as those people 
tend to describe their point of view as that only access tags matter which 
(to me) implies that shouldn't matter at all what the highway=* value is.

>   The default rendering is problematic in two ways; 
> 
> path is much heavier than footway/cycleway/bridleway, which are
> similar except for color.

On this I agree, especially if many forest trails are mapped, see eg.:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/60.2042/25.1686

> I believe that a lot of the footway/path angst would go away if path
> stopped looking like a higher class of road.

Also less prominance to forest/informal trails are needed, as they are 
more messy when mapped with high density and the distinction i

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Ilpo Järvinen  writes:

> You seem to admit that there's need for some hierarchy, however, on the 
> same time you seem to oppose the idea that such hierarcy would exists 
> based on physical properties (man-made vs informal). I find it strange 
> since it shouldn't be that hard to come up use cases where excluding or 
> warning the user about informal paths is very useful thing. In order to 
> make mappers to tag that differentiation, I think that the default 
> stylesheet should visualize this difference somehow.

There are two issues. One is the physical aspect, and I think you
overweight how much people care about that.  Or rather, people
understand that trails through the forest are not usually paved.

The hierarchy that I care about is showing trails that are useful for
traveling longer distances at lower zoom levels.  When zooming out, I
still want to see trails that are useful for big distances, whereas
sidewalks are clutter.  This is not so different from still showing
primary.  But it's not about physical, it's about the logical place in
the road network.   For car roads, high-status roads tend to be
wider/faster.  For trails, that's not really true.

pgpLNh40Ro32H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread Ilpo Järvinen

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:

> 
> Ilpo Järvinen  writes:
> 
> > You seem to admit that there's need for some hierarchy, however, on the 
> > same time you seem to oppose the idea that such hierarcy would exists 
> > based on physical properties (man-made vs informal). I find it strange 
> > since it shouldn't be that hard to come up use cases where excluding or 
> > warning the user about informal paths is very useful thing. In order to 
> > make mappers to tag that differentiation, I think that the default 
> > stylesheet should visualize this difference somehow.
> 
> There are two issues. One is the physical aspect, and I think you
> overweight how much people care about that.  Or rather, people
> understand that trails through the forest are not usually paved.

It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of 
"not paved trails through forest". Those which come with man applied 
surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically 
surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be rather level 
and easy to walk on and reasonably free from obstacles, and those where 
the conditions are close to unknown (given unfamiliar terrain), might be 
easy/ok but might as well require negotiating tricky parts or even 
backtracking. It's important aspect for (non-computerized) routeplanning 
to know this difference.

-- 
 i.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path


Ilpo Järvinen  writes:

> It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of 
> "not paved trails through forest". Those which come with man applied 
> surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically 
> surface=fine_gravel to be more precise), which tends to be rather level 
> and easy to walk on and reasonably free from obstacles, and those where 
> the conditions are close to unknown (given unfamiliar terrain), might be 
> easy/ok but might as well require negotiating tricky parts or even 
> backtracking. It's important aspect for (non-computerized) routeplanning 
> to know this difference.

That's fair, but I think it's not really about artificial surface.  It's
about whether someone with some familiarity with hiking in general is
going to be able to follow the trail without too much trouble.   But I'm
afraid that this is a continuum more than a yes/no sort of thing.


pgp6QDzwWWpxS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path